Going Concern

News

Is Accounting Rule Anarchy a Good Idea?

Caleb Newquist
November 18, 2010

John Carney comments on Sheila Bair’s bellyaching about mark-to-market today by simply wondering why there has to be a debate at all. That is, couldn’t accounting rules just be served up – presumably buffet style – and the banks would choose which treatment they like best and then regulators could judge their health based on their choices:

Here’s what I don’t get: why do we need one set of accounting standards at all? To put it differently, why should banking regulators feel obliged to judge the safety and soundness of financial institutions according to any measure that they do not like? If Bair doesn’t think fair value is appropriate to the banking sector, can’t she just ignore fair value when judging whether banks satisfy regulatory requirements?

It’s an interesting question. Why does the FDIC care what fair value says when determining bank health? Analysts use and refer to non-GAAP data all the time, so what difference does it make if regulators rationalize their analysis on similar non-GAAP measures?

After explaining that, despite the complaints of a certain billionaire (among others), transparency is actually a good thing, Carney floats an idea:

My truly radical proposal is that we should probably do away with this argument altogether by allowing banks—and every other company for that matter—to choose which accounting standards they want to use. If amortized cost is truly a better standard, banks using that will surely be rewarded by higher stock prices and cheaper access to credit. On the other hand, if fair value is appropriate, the market will reward that. Why not let banks choose and bear the costs of their choice?

While we’re with John in spirit (especially for the banks, they run things after all), the BSDs in the accounting will never let this fly. The idea of letting individual companies determine what accounting rules to follow is enough to cause Big 4 partners to set themselves on fire in the middle of Union Square in protest.

However, if you’ve got thoughts on we could put this thing in motion, it might be kind of fun to see how it works out.

Career Center

Senior Manager Needs Help Enforcing the Short Skirt Policy

Caleb Newquist
November 17, 2010

Welcome to the one-more-week-until-a-half-day edition of “I’m an accountant and I need you to fix my problem.” In today’s edition, a senior manager has a new associate who is bouncing between firm-approved and firm-unapproved skirts. The extra skin has gotten some attention and the SM has already given the associate a vague warning. What’s next?

Caughte at work? Need advice on how to behave around a monarch? Looking at some jail time and need some ideas on how to spend your final days outside? Email us at advice@goingconcern.com and we’ll make sure you’ll behavior is acceptable/memorable for your respective situation.

All right then, enough skirting the issue:

I am a Senior Audit Manger. “Danica” is a newly hired audit staff. I am not “Danica’s” mentor. Technically “Danica” is about average. Unfortunately, “Danica” wears skirts six to seven inches above the knee. The firm dress code is three inches above the knee.

When she interviewed and for her first two weeks her presentation was excellent, nicely tailored three inches above the knee or a pants suit, nice hair and make-up. I know this a not lack of knowledge or a lack of funds to purchase a work wardrobe. In week three, when the short skirts first appeared, I called her into my office explained that accounting was a conservative profession and regardless of what our clients wore they expected us to be dressed professionally. I also explained that it was just as important she dress conservatively in the office as she could be sent to a client at anytime and the partners form an opinion of her when she is in the office. I did not explicitly mention the length or her skirts. The following two weeks she dressed correctly again and I patted myself on the back for effectively counseling a nice young staff member.

Two weeks later the short skirts were back again. Since that time one client made a negative comment as “Danica” walked past the conference room. Two other staff have asked me if new staff received copies of the dress code.

We spent a lot of money putting her through training. I would like to salvage “Danica’s” career if I can. I personally like her. I don’t think it is too late. In a few months people would chalk it up to poor judgment by a new staff member; not much worse than posting drunken photos on their facebook page. If she corrected her dress between now and the end of Decmber, then I could staff her on my jobs during busy season. However, I don’t want to open the firm up to a discrimination lawsuit if she takes this the wrong way.

What if anything do I do next?

Dear Fashion Police,

Being a proponent of fantastic gams, this particular issue may cause our thoughts to drift but we understand that you have a problem and we’ll do our best to stay objective here.

Judging by the timing (short skirts are appearing every two weeks) it’s possible that the young lady’s wardrobe is of the size that the shorter hems are simply appearing in their usual spot of the attire rotation. Your sit-down in week three sounds a little ambiguous and it appears the associate’s did not get the point of your little chat.

The fact that others have noticed is cause for concern (unless the associate is campaigning) and it may be time for another chat. This time reference your firm’s dress code rather than explain that accountants are expected to “dress professionally.” Ask the associate if has questions and allow them to communicate their feelings on the situation. You need to avoid any confusion on situation, otherwise you’re just compounding the problem.

The risk of a discrimination lawsuit is minimal** based on the fact that you have an explicit policy that all employees must follow. Danica is a new associate and this is a blip on her career so nip this issue in the bud and everyone will move on quickly.

**DISCLAIMER: I’m not a lawyer but, come on. There’s a policy!

From Traditional IRA to Roth IRA: New Rollover Rules

Caleb Newquist
November 17, 2010

For years prior to 2010, only taxpayers with modified AGI of $100,000 or less generally were permitted to convert a traditional IRA into a Roth IRA. For years beginning in 2010 and after, the AGI limitation has been eliminated. Thus, regardless of AGI, all otherwise eligible taxpayers will be allowed to convert an IRA to a Roth IRA. The amount converted is includible in income as if a withdrawal had been made, but no early withdrawal penalties are assessed.

Two-year income spread if conversion done in 2010 – For conversions occurring in 2010, unless a taxpayer elects otherwise, none of the amount is includible in gross income in 2010, with half of the income resulting from the conversion includible in gross income in 2011 and h, income inclusion is accelerated if converted amounts are distributed before 2012. In that case, the amount included in income in the year of the distribution is increased by the amount distributed, and the amount included in income in 2012 (or 2011 and 2012 in the case of a distribution in 2010) is the lesser of: (1) half of the amount includible in income as a result of the conversion; and (2) the remaining portion of such amount not already included in income. The following example illustrates the application of the accelerated inclusion rule.

Example – Betty has a traditional IRA with a value of $100,000 consisting of deductible contributions and earnings. Betty does not have a Roth IRA. She converts the traditional IRA to a Roth IRA in 2010, and as a result of the conversion, $100,000 is includible in gross income. Unless Betty elects otherwise, $50,000 of the income resulting from the conversion is included in income in 2011 and $50,000 in 2012.

Later in 2010, Betty takes a $20,000 distribution, which is not a qualified distribution and all of which, under the ordering rules, is attributable to amounts includible in gross income as a result of the conversion. Under the accelerated inclusion rule, $20,000 is included in income in 2010.

The amount included in income in 2011 is the lesser of (1) $50,000 (half of the income resulting from the conversion); or (2) $80,000 (the remaining income from the conversion). The amount included in income in 2012 is the lesser of (1) $50,000 (half of the income resulting from the conversion), or (2) $30,000 (the remaining income from the conversion, i.e., $100,000 – $70,000 ($20,000 included in income in 2010 and $50,000 included in income in 2011)).

Preparer note – While you cannot elect out of the two year spread on only a portion of the conversion income in 2010 (it’s an all or nothing election), husband and wife may each make separate elections for their individual IRA accounts. For example, a wife could elect to report her conversion income in 2010 and her husband could report his 2010 conversion income in 2011 and 2012. This may result a better spread of the income. The same taxpayer is allowed to make separate elections for separate IRA accounts.

If you need guidance on answering the question, “should my client convert to a Roth?” check out CPE Link’s Federal Tax Update: Part 2 webcast scheduled November-January.. You’ll get a myriad of planning ideas and even access to a simple, but sophisticated, calculator. (Note: The above information was excerpted from Vern Hoven’s manual used in the webcast.) In addition to coverage of the IRA & Individual Retirement area, you’ll get an update on Real Estate & Investment, and Estates, Trusts & Beneficiaries.

News
The JDA

The AICPA Teaches Congress What “Burdensome” Really Means

Adrienne Gonzalez
November 17, 2010

On July 19, the AICPA sent a letter to the House and Senate condemning new 1099 reporting requirements (said requirements being carefully hidden inside The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act a.k.a. Obamacare) as burdensome and annoying. Apparently the AICPA must feel quite strongly about this matter as it is now November and they have sent a very similar letter to Congress, perhaps to show them just how burdensome extra paperwork can really be.

The House letter may be found here.

The AICPA doesn’t like that rental property owners could now be required to keep extensive records and bother with tax issues in typically tax-free January, among other things:

This would be the first time that individual taxpayers owning rental property who are not “engaged in a trade or business,” would be required to provide Forms 1099-MISC. For example, many individuals, who own a vacation property that is rented part of the year to help defray their costs, would be subject to the provisions of the SBJA. We are concerned that (1) keeping records to track expenses by provider, (2) obtaining tax identification numbers and other information from providers of property and services, and (3) providing Forms 1099-MISC during January, a month when taxpayers would not normally be focused on tax issues, would be extremely burdensome. Additionally, the AICPA questions the need for sending information forms to certain providers of services, such as utility companies.

Thankfully the AICPA has everyone’s back and feels as though business owners should be allowed to focus on growing their businesses instead of worrying over filling out massive amounts of paperwork. We’ve got to appreciate that attitude as any other professional organization might salivate over the idea of plenty of billable hours to go around as CPAs line up to hook up business owners with the right paperwork but not the AICPA, who said “businesses do not need the added cost of more regulatory requirements at a time when their efforts must be focused on profitability and sustainability.” Word!

We look forward to the next round of angry letters from the AICPA on this matter and hope that they don’t find fighting Congress too burdensome.

News

(UPDATE) Ex-Grant Thornton Partner Gabriel Azedo Arrested in Spain

Caleb Newquist
November 17, 2010

~ Updated includes statement from Grant Thornton International in final paragraph.

The South China Morning Post is reporting that former Grant Thornton partner, Gabriel Azedo was arrested in Spain, citing “people with knowledge of his detention.”

Gaby was on the lam for over year and has allegedly stolen HK$91 million (around USD$11.7 million) from those close to him, although one of his alleged victims doesn’t see this as a half glass full situation:

Yesterday one of his alleged creditors, racehorse owner Archie da Silva, said: “I don’t know whether to be happy or not. Just because he has been arrested doesn’t mean we will get our money back. It could be a very tedious process to get him back to Hong Kong.”

Arch’s concerns about bureaucratic nightmare that is extradition seem to be well-founded, as the article explains that getting Gaby back to Hong Kong really isn’t going to be easy:

“There is no bilateral agreement between Hong Kong and Spain but a transfer under multilateral treaties the two jurisdictions are signatories to, or under provisions in Spanish domestic law, are two areas that can be looked at,” the person said.

However, it is likely extradition could involve a lengthy legal and diplomatic process because Hong Kong has no Surrender of Fugitive Offenders Agreement with Spain.

Another officer linked to the case said: “It’s really up to Spanish authorities to decide whether to hand over the man to us. They could ignore our request as there is no legal obligation for them to hand over Azedo.”

~~We contacted Grant Thornton International to see if they wanted to comment but have yet to hear back.~~ It goes without saying that this story is pretty strange/intriguing so, we’ll continue to follow the developments.

UPDATE, circa 10:45 am ET: A Grant Thornton International spokeswoman provided us with the following statement regarding the matter:

“We understand from media reports that Gabriel Azedo has been arrested in Spain and that he may be the subject of extradition proceedings to Hong Kong. He was a member of the global leadership board of Grant Thornton International until his dismissal in October 2009. Immediately following his disappearance, Ms. Angela Gardner, a close relative of Mr. Azedo, filed a lawsuit in Hong Kong against Grant Thornton International Ltd but this was subsequently dismissed by the Hong Kong court.

While the situation is highly regrettable for the individuals concerned, this is now a matter for them and for the Hong Kong courts.”

Announcements

Reminder: Going Concern Reader Survey (Fall 2010)

Caleb Newquist
November 17, 2010

Against my will, TPTB have forced me to remind you that it is imperative that you take our Fall 2010 Survey if you haven’t already.

It’s also been impressed upon me to also re-mention that we are offering you the chance to win a $500 gift card and it also makes you a good American.

Kindly follow this link to take our survey. As always, your time (billable or not) and participation are appreciated.

Thanks!

Accounting News Roundup: Deficit Reduction Part II; Eloquence Beats the Truth in Interviews; AICPA Still Begging for 1099 Repealment | 11.17.10

Caleb Newquist
November 17, 2010

Another Deficit Plan Targets Taxes [WSJ]
A panel of Democrats, Republicans, economists and other experts is set to say Wedne overhaul of the U.S. tax code is the best way to address the nation’s fiscal problems—a new and likely controversial idea aimed at tackling the growing deficit.

The report, co-authored by Democratic budget veteran Alice Rivlin and former Sen. Pete Domenici (R., N.M.), follows a separate proposal last week by the two chairmen of President Barack Obama’s deficit commission. The many similarities between the two offer a window into the types of proposals that might win backing as Washington launches into what is likely to be a protracted debate on deficit cutting.

Pretty Good for Government Work [NYT]
A “Grateful Nephew” sends a thank you note to his uncle, “Uncle Sam, you delivered. People will second-guess your specific decisions; you can always count on that. But just as there is a fog of war, there is a fog of panic — and, overall, your actions were remarkably effective.”

Facebook’s messaging: would you like a rectal probe with that? [AccMan]
Dennis Howlett reacts to the reactionary.

Eloquence in an Interview Is Better Than Accuracy, Says Study [FINS]
If you’re stumped by a question in an interview, fake it. That’s the advice coming out of a new study from Harvard.

You’ll have a better chance of making a good impression if you respond eloquently and slightly irrelevantly than if you answer truthfully but with a dozen “uhs” and “ums” thrown in, according to the study.

Politicking Hinders U.S. Recovery [CFO Blog]
Sayeth Zanny Minton-Beddoes, an economics editor at the…Economist.

AICPA Urges Repeal of Expanded 1099 Reporting Requirements [JofA]
The House and the Senate each got their own letter.

City Could Extend No. 7 to New Jersey [WSJ]
Hizzoner is exploring the idea.

Shorter Agenda for Convergence [CFO]
Chief financial officers and controllers can breathe a little easier now that accounting rule makers have decided to scale back their aggressive schedule and focus on completing five priority projects by next year. The announcement was made on Monday by Leslie Seidman, acting chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, at a financial-reporting conference sponsored by Financial Executives International. She was reiterating decisions made by the board earlier this month.

Do all your audit activities add value? [Marks on Governance/IIA]
Well?

CFOs

The Housing Crisis Didn’t Stop the Fannie Mae CFO From Keeping Everyone in Stitches

Caleb Newquist
November 17, 2010

“Since joining Fannie Mae in 2008, David has worked diligently and successfully to help Fannie Mae respond to the housing finance crisis while developing strategies to enhance the finance function and prepare our company for the future. We will miss David’s intellect, energy, and good humor.”

~ Fannie Mae CEO Michael Williams in an email to employees announcing the resignation of CFO David Johnson.

Fraud

Sue Sachdeva’s Defense Team Provides Hysterical Argument for a Lighter Prison Sentence

Caleb Newquist
November 17, 2010

Koss embezzlement mastermind Sue Sachdeva will receive her prison sentence tomorrow for ripping the headphone cobbler off to the tune of $34 million. Yesterday, the government’s sentencing memorandum (full document after the jump) was released and the prosecution and defense each made their arguments for a heavier/lighter prison sentence.

Naturally, the prosecution is seeking the maximum sentence, as is Koss CEO Michael Koss, who wrote a letter to the court with his thoughts:

“She stole from the hardworking employees of the company and their families, and ultimately the stockholders of the company,” Koss wrote. “They are the true victims of her crimes.”

Yes! The shareholders! Including the Koss family members who 67% owned of the stock ! Especially the ones who held five executive positions at once!

But never mind that for two. Tracy Coenen breaks down the defense’s argument for S-squared to receive a lighter sentence and it’s a hoot:

They argued that Sue Sachdeva should get a lighter sentence because:

a. she’s been a law-abiding citizen until now

b. the fraud was “simple”

c. and poor, poor Sue has a “compulsive shopping disorder”

Jump over to Tracy’s post for more analysis but our take on these three reasons are as follows:

A. “Until now,” as in “right up to the moment she pleaded guilty”? If so, that sorta ignores a scam that went on for over a decade.

B. Again, so simple that it went on for over ten years? You’re really making the Koss management look like a bunch of idiots…Wait, maybe they’re on to something here.

C. Please. Show us someone who wasn’t addicted to shopping in the 90s and 00s.

Sentencing Memo

IRS Commish: Gird Your Loins, Offshore Bank Havens

Caleb Newquist
November 17, 2010

Yesterday we mentioned that the IRS’s new Global High Wealth Industry Group was putting the screws to the rich via “Audits from Hell.” Today, the Service announced that they were withdrawing the federal court summons against UBS since the Swiss Bank provide 4,000 more names of American clients who had parked funds offshore.

With the announcement, IRS Commish Doug Shulman put those 4k lucky ducks on notice that they should prepare for their personal audit inferno:

The IRS on Tuesday withdrew its Miami federal court summons seeking identities of suspected U.S. tax dodgers at UBS after receiving more than 4,000 names as required under an August 2009 agreement that also included the Swiss government. Each of those people expect what Shulman called a “full-blown audit” and many are likely to be charged criminally.

But that’s not all! Clearly, not satisfied with the example made of UBS, the Commish made a promise to everyone that the Service’s offshore bank raids were just getting started.

This is the close of what I call the first chapter,” IRS chief Doug Shulman told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. “We are actively pursuing a number of other banks and promoters and advisers.”

Shulman declined to get into specifics about ongoing offshore tax investigations, but said: “It’s not just about Switzerland, this is about multiple countries and multiple institutions.”

Tax
Video

Tim Geithner Doesn’t Think a Tax Cut Compromise Should Be Complicated

Caleb Newquist
November 17, 2010

He’d take care of this right here, right now if he could.

[via DB]

News
Video

Here’s What Charlie Rangel Missed at His Ethics Trial

Caleb Newquist
November 17, 2010

He really should have stuck around. He won on a couple of ’em, which is probably better than most people were expecting.

Of course Chuck isn’t going quietly:

How can anyone have confidence in the decision of the Ethics Subcommittee when I was deprived of due process rights, right to counsel and was not even in the room? I can only hope that the full Committee will treat me more fairly, and take into account my entire 40 years of service to the Congress before making any decisions on sanctions.

[…]

The Committee’s findings are even more difficult to understand in view of yesterday’s declaration by the Committee’s chief counsel, Blake Chisam, that there was no evidence of corruption or personal gain in his findings.

From here forward, it is my hope that the full Ethics Committee will take into consideration the opinion of its chief counsel as well as the statement by Rep. Bobby Scott, a member of its investigatory subcommittee who said that any failings in my conduct were the result of “good faith mistakes” and were caused by “sloppy and careless recordkeeping, but were not criminal or corrupt.”

Earlier:
Charlie Rangel Has Heard Enough

Careers

Big 4

News

Technology

Practice Management

Site Search

Twitter Feed

Get the Accounting News Roundup

Quick Reads

Sponsored Content

Get the Accounting News Roundup

Staff Accountant

Remote Senior Tax Manager, CPA

Remote Tax Manager

Staff Accountant

Remote Senior Tax Manager, CPA

Remote Tax Manager